JUDGMENT 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 in W.P. No. 13867 of 2012 dated 5.4.2013, vacating the interim stay granted on 30.10.2012. 2. Mrs. S. Srimathi, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the main writ appeal itself was taken up for final disposal. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that while granting interim stay on 30.10.2012 several reasons have been stated for the grant of Interim Stay. However, the learned single Judge, without assigning any reason, except stating that the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner was not ready to argue the matter on the particular day and wanted only adjournment, vacated the Interim Stay. 4. The appellant, having engaged a counsel, and if the counsel is not in a position to appear on a day, on that ground alone, no adverse order can be passed. The said issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh v. Raghu Raj AIR 2009 SC 514 : (2008) 13 SCC 395 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 24 and 25 (in SCC) held thus, “24....... when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non-appearance of the advocate. 25. In Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788 ) the High Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the appellant in the absence of his counsel. When the appellant came to know of the fact that his appeal had been disposed of in absence of the advocate, he filed an application for recall of the order dismissing the appeal and to permit him to participate in the hearing of the appeal. The application was, however, rejected by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation why the advocate remained absent. The aggrieved appellant approached this Court. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the High Court and remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, this Court stated: (Rafiq case, SCC pp. 789-90, para 3) “3. The aggrieved appellant approached this Court. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the High Court and remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, this Court stated: (Rafiq case, SCC pp. 789-90, para 3) “3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Court’s procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr. A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, … he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law.” (emphasis supplied) Further in paragraphs 39 to 41 (in SCC) the Apex Court held thus, “39......... in our opinion, on the facts in their entirety, the High Court ought not to have proceeded to decide the appeal, we hold that the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. In view of this conclusion, we clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed final opinion one way or the other as regards interpretation of Rule 17 of Order 41 read with Rule 1 of Order 42. 40. Since the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside on a short ground and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, we refrain from expressing any opinion one way or the other on merits of the matter as well. As and when the matter will be placed for hearing before the High Court, the Court will pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties. 41. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the High Court dismissing the second appeal as also dismissing the recall application are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties.” Further, no reason is stated by the learned single Judge for vacating the order on merits. 5. The orders passed by the High Court dismissing the second appeal as also dismissing the recall application are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties.” Further, no reason is stated by the learned single Judge for vacating the order on merits. 5. Applying the above said decision and on the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 in W.P. No. 13867 of 2012 is restored to consider the matter on merits. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. The connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2013 is closed. Appeal allowed.